Richard Dawkins' Jewish Question
"A scientist looking at nonscientific problems,'' said the great physicist Richard Feynman, "is just as dumb as the next guy.'' That's not necessarily anyone else's concern -- unless the scientist in question is claiming to speak, with scientific authority, for the rest of us.
A fresh case in point is this analysis by Oxford's Richard Dawkins, from an interview published earlier this month in Britain's Guardian (see the sixth paragraph). As part of his ongoing campaign to get "downtrodden,'' apologetic atheists stand up for themselves, Dawkins suggests that we secular humanists emulate other minorities. For instance, the Jews:
"When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told -- religious Jews anyway -- than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolize American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place."
The historian David H. Fischer identified this kind of rhetoric as "the fallacy of equivocation.'' That's where, he wrote, "a term is used in two or more senses within a single argument, so that a conclusion appears to follow when in fact it does not.'' Dawkins starts with the "Jewish lobby'' (by which one presumes he means the pro-Israel lobby, from his later reference to foreign policy). Then he says "they'' are less numerous than atheists (so now the referent is not an office-full of people, but rather, American Jews). Then he qualifies the term to mean "religious Jews.'' We've gone from (1) AIPAC to (2) "the Jews'' to (3) Jews who believe in God and (4) Jews who follow traditional practice. (The term "religious Jews'' could describe both types of person, and there is no reason to think that everyone in category 4 is also in category 3.)
In short, quite a muddle. I cannot tell who we secularists should be trying to copy -- lobbyists, ethnically Jewish Americans, believers in a deity or people who hold to traditional practice without reflecting on ultimate questions. Only one thing is clear: By casually echoing the rhetoric of anti-Semites, Dawkins has made a fool of himself and, by extension, those of us for whom he claims to speak.
The interesting question is: Why? How could Dawkins, the holder of Oxford's Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science, miss the differences among the kinds of people he lumps together, both in the Guardian interview and on the website? Those distinctions are well-documented. Pro-Israel lobbyists get plenty of support in the US from non-Jews (importantly including conservative evangelical Christians). Meanwhile, plenty of Jews, in Israel and throughout the world, do not support the goals of this lobby. Take a look here for an example. Then too, there are religious Jews who most emphatically do not support the State of Israel or its goals. Have a look here, for instance.
As it happens, the potency of pro-Israel lobbyists has been much in the news lately, since John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt just published a long-germinating book that analyzes the effect of the lobby in the U.S. (You can read a shorter version of their arguments here. Briefly, they say lobbyists for Israel have been highly successful in influencing government policy -- as have the National Rifle Association or the AARP. Perhaps the controversy over their book inspired Dawkins' remark.
But they don't say what Dawkins is saying. In fact, Mearsheimer, offered a chance to say precisely what Dawkins claimed, instead explained that this picture is not supported by his and Walt's study. You can see him saying it here.
Anyone can get his facts wrong and later correct himself. But Dawkins' confusion suggests a deeper problem -- a conceptual misunderstanding about identity. That mistake may stem from his casting himself as a leader of downtrodden atheists. In any event, it explains why his movement is doomed.
The problem, briefly, is just this: Identity-based behavior is not a unitary phenomenon. It comes in many forms. And what people do in one mode does not predict what they will do in another. The forms overlap (you can be at the same time a Dawkinsian secular humanist and a Jewish person and an activist for Palestinian rights). We often use the same language for the different types. All that makes the fallacy of equivocation easy to commit. But it's still an error.
Dawkins' statement, for example, invokes at least three different modes of identity. First, there is identity based on a consciously chosen belief. (You've thought about U.S. policy in the Middle East and come to a conclusion about what you want the Government to do.) Second, there is identity based on habit and upbringing. Maybe you don't believe in God or approve of West Bank settlements, but you go to seder at your grandparents (it's family, it's childhood, it's what "we'' do). Third is identity based on a trait that is perceived to be involuntary, and often thought to be inherited. You can decide to support Palestinian rights or choose to go to the movies on Yom Kippur, but somehow, you feel, you can't change where you come from.
Identities of the second type, like knowing yourself to be Irish or Catholic or a Yankees fan or a hunter, come to you through early experiences, where you're taken through the rites and patterns of life that teach you "what we do'' and "who we are.'' Such identities are learned by the body, in sights, smells, sounds and movements that arrive before reason. The mode was well described by the philosopher Michael Oakeshott, when he wrote:
We acquire habits of conduct, not by constructing a way of living upon rules or precepts learned by heart and subsequently practiced, but by living with people who habitually behave in a certain manner: we acquire habits of conduct in the same way as we acquire our native language.
This sort of identity is rather impervious to rational thought and official declarations, and a good thing too. I, for one, am glad that my sense of being American -- my sense that home is home -- does not depend on the policies of the federal government.
Identities of the third type are imposed. They arise out of the encounters you have with the rest of the world; encounters you cannot refuse to see and cannot wish away. You can decide how to deal with such an identity -- whether, for example, you want to be an out and proud member of the GLBT community or a total closet case. But you cannot decide to leave such an identity behind you. The rest of the world won't allow it.
Now, atheism is an identity of the first type, the conscious, thought- out sort. That is the point Dawkins makes when he says we should not refer to a "Catholic child'' or a "Muslim child,'' because a child can't decide what s/he thinks about the existence of God.
The problem, though, is that identities based on opinions feel ephemeral, because opinions change all the time. With an identity based only on opinion, you have two unattractive choices: (1) Admit that tomorrow you could no longer belong to the tribe, because you might change your mind; or (2) admit that in order to preserve tribal feeling, you will have to behave as if your opinion is much more certain and consistent than a normal thought.
This second choice is what Dawkins advocated, I think, when he wrote this on his web site:
I admit, I sympathize with those skeptics on this site who fear that we are engendering a quasi-religious conformity of our own. Whether we like it or not, I'm afraid we have to swallow this small amount of pride if we are to have an influence on the real world, otherwise we'll never overcome the 'herding cats' problem.
But the problem with atheist solidarity (and the reason atheist groups are comically riven by orthodoxies, inquisitions, purges and schisms) is not that all members are nuanced, independent thinkers. It is that atheism, unlike sexual orientation or religious upbringing or beloved cultural tradition, is an easily-changed conviction, and everyone knows it. Dawkins can't admit this because he wants to lead his people into the Promised Land, and to do that he needs to have a people. He thinks atheists just need to go slumming, and pretend for a bit to believe the same thing. But identities that matter are not based on belief at all.
Most everyone knows this, and so very few people can take atheism seriously as a basis for understanding "what kind of person I am.'' Instead, the identities that make people glad, mad, and weepy are those about which people feel they have no choice: The identities they learn at their parents' knees, the experiences imposed on them by the beliefs of the neighbors. Not coincidentally, it is those identities that make people cough up money to support effective lobbyists in Washington. Identities like "hunter'' (National Rifle Association) and "gay person'' (Human Rights Campaign) and "old person'' (American Association of Retired Persons).
Could atheism be made then into such an identity? For example, by atheist parents who raise atheist children with explicitly atheist annual rituals and beloved cultural icons? (The standard American Christmas is fairly secular but it pretends not to be, so it wouldn't count.) Well, sure. You can make a convincing identity out of anything, if you put generations of effort into it. And perhaps, with his t-shirts, buttons, instructions for holding meetings, this is what Richard Dawkins is aiming at. In the meantime, though, he is fooling himself and making the rest of us secularists look like idiots.
Follow David Berreby on Twitter: www.twitter.com/davidberreby
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
What do people think the Church of Scientology is?
Do they think Hubbard beleived all the science fiction.
Hubbard noticed all the advantages our society gives to any creeping crawling thing if it defines itself as a religion.
Scientology was just a way for atheists to get together and claim those benefits.
Humorous, and (I hope) wrong.
Straight for the Scientology 'official web site'
http://www
" Scientology is the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, others and all of life. The Scientology religion comprises a body of knowledge extending from certain fundamental truths. Prime among these:
Man is an immortal, spiritual being. His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime. His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized — and those capabilities can be realized. He is able to not only solve his own problems, accomplish his goals and gain lasting happiness, but also achieve new, higher states of awareness and ability. "
You're not going to find many atheists, or even mugwump agnostics believing that.
Dawkins hits a sore spot, and the best that the enemy can come up with is "you don't like us because we're religious, you take cheap shots at our religious institutions". Well hullo! That's the whole point. The religious front sits there on its ivory tower, founded on vacuum, and is surprised and offended when the non-indoctrinated few speak up and point out the error of their ways. The emperor ("god") really does not have any clothes on.
I agree 101% with TJS.
There's a lesson to be learned hear. Jews, due to their uniqueness, are never to be used in any sort of analogy or you will be accused of being anti semetic. Oh damn- I just said Jews are 'unique'-that's probably going to piss someone off. Oh well at least I didn't say they were 'clean' or 'articulate'
Nearly everyone I know socially is an atheist, and we do have a culture. Its quite possible for groups to develop tradititons that do not revolve around worshipping imaginary beings and unprovable ideas.
Good point, Cyrus, about the lesson. As for the Jews being unique, I don't buy it in spite of 3000+ years of self proclamati
(Part I)
Hello All,
I wasn't born in Israel, and I wasn't born in America. Regardless, I have Jewish roots from my mother's side of the family. I'm actually embarassed that I have ties to a culture, which murdered my brother, not in body, but in Soul. As I was growing up, and watching people around me, immediately I realized that people were still very primitive when it came to Human Rights, Equality, treating others with Dignity, having Common Sense, and in doing what's right. I realized right away that people were more faithful to the almighty Dollar $$$, than they were to God, or a Higher Power.
God is the Dollar, ask any megachurch.
It is amazing that people when asked do they believe in elves, fairies and hobgoblins smile deprecatingly, but when asked if they believe in angels, God in the sky, heaven and hell give an positive answer.
God exists only in your mind and not "out there".
(Part IV)
I'm ashamed to be part Jewish, knowing all I know about my ancestors history. I felt bad for them for the genocide they suffered under Hitler's reign, but after analyzing everything, I no longer pity them. I have cut off any possible ties, as one would cut off one of their own limbs. I'm not saying that all Jewish people are evil, but as long as they condone, and allow their government to terrorize the people they live around, they will all be responsible, and will continue to suffer.
I assure you Hitler would make you suffer as a "part Jew." Read your history.
A person can have Jewish ancestry and still be antisemitic, just as a homosexual can be filled with homophobia. Some people hope to gain acceptance with those that hate them, in the vain hope that the stigma they carry will be ignored in their case, because they're 'one of the good ones.' How pathetic. Finally, to claim that all people are responsible for the actions of their government is absurd, hateful, and sophomoric.
If you have *roots* from your mother's side, Notorious, I must inform you that you are not part jewish, but fully jewish, in all likelyhood, unless, of course, you refer to your mother's *roots* and her *roots* actually derived from the paternal side, in which case neither she, nor you, have *jewish roots*. I agree with you that, as a people, we are all responsible for the acts of a few, and we express that at Yom Kippur. I doubt, Notorious, that you *know all about your ancestor's history* or even much about it. By the way, your *contribution* is not relevant to the topic.
Thanks for the warning. You are truly a light unto the Jews. We thank you.
If one claims,
"...the gun lobby is a powerful influence on policy..."
"...the insurance companies are a powerful influence on policy..."
"...the oil companies are a powerful influence on policy..."
"...the labor unions are a powerful influence on policy..."
Make any of the above statements and most people would agree with you, a few would disagree, but you would not be called a bigot, a racist, or prejudiced.
But make the following statement,
"...the Israeli lobby is a powerful influence on American policy..."
They will claim you are fabricating a lie...that there is no such thing as an Israeli lobby. They will claim that even if this lobby exists, it does not exert influence. And you will be labeled an anti-Semite for merely mentioning the existence of this "nonexistent" lobby.
It is one thing for Dawkins to say that the Israeli lobby is powerful, it is another to say the Jewish lobby monopolizes foreign policy.
No it isn't! Its the very same thing! What do you suppose a jewish lobby will spend its power doing? Walt and Mearshimer, along with a few other authors, have made a specific case for how the jewish lobbies have influenced foreign policy as they continue to do.
It is an age-old strategy with deep religious roots to extract a small quote from someone's work in order to pillory him. A non-religious example would be the persecutions in Maoist China for little more than a phrase that failed to toe the party line. (I'm thinking of Lui Shao-chi.) Dawkins will survive this assault on the HuffPost; he thrives on controversy and he's never shied away from stirring the pot. The concept of this original entry should have been titled Much Ado About Nothing.
Dawkins is correct in stating that the Jewish have a very powerful lobby in this country. Is he jealous of this? Angry about this? Believes they have undue influence or are not entitled to this? Maybe if Atheists had been persecuted for as many thousands of years as the jews have been, they would be this organized and powerful. Talk to me in about 5,000 years about all the sufferings that the atheists of the world have suffered and I might be interested in your plight. As a Roman Catholic, I support the Jewish people 100%. They brought me Christ.
In the history of the civilization, do you not think that atheists have been persecuted as much as any other? Considering that religion predates written history, we could say that atheists ahve been persecuted from as far back as the ancient Egyptians or Sumerians, beating out the Jews by a good 3000 years. The difference being that atheists have never particularly felt the need to proselytise, knowing that the pro-God folks are pretty violent and intolerant when someone challenges their unfounded belief. So until lately, it's been generally safer to just keep our mouths shut, because for our reality, we won't be getting any rewards in heaven for conversion of the nonbeliever. The ultra-powerful influence of religion (all religion here, not specifically Judaism) and its detrimental effect on the entirety of humanity (name your issue, religion screws it up and muddies any honest debate) has all but mandated that those of us whose "religion" is science and reason MUST now speak up for the benefit of all humankind. I'm not concerned with what happens to me after I die, I'm concerned with what happens to me while I am alive, and to my children, and to all children.
(At the risk of speaking for someone else...) I don't think Dawkins is jealous or angry, and I strongly doubt he believes their influence is undue or unentitled. I think the point he's trying to make is that the "Jewish Lobby" seems to have influence above what "their" numbers would indicate. And the reason he makes that point, I think, is that as a group atheists don't have that influence.
Also I don't think that it's necessary for atheists to suffer thousands of years of persecution, though it would more likely be ostricization, for 'our' views to be represented. I wouldn't mind a powerful lobby throwing our collective weight around.
And ironically, I support the Roman Catholics 100%. They brought me to atheism. :)
Have Jews been influential in society beyond what their raw numbers would suggest? Yes, but it's because of factors like universal Jewish literacy, a dedication to education, a desire to be part of rather than separate themselves from the society around them (not universal, but widespread), and being locked out of some industries due to anti-Semitism and thus being pushed into others (such as the movie industry in the early part of the 20th century).
Is there a strong pro-Israel lobby in Washington? Yes, just as many other interest groups have strong lobbies. At the same time, while the current Administration's policies seem to dovetail with the wishes of the pro-Israel lobby, that has not always been true. Israel has thrived notwithstanding administrations less supportive of the Israeli right wing, and when when the Israeli left wing was in ascendancy.
Does this equal a "Jewish lobby" made up of "religious Jews" which "monopolize[s] American foreign policy"? No. American foreign policy is monopolized by those who control it: the President and the State Department. The pro-Israel lobby is just one factor, and not the most powerful by any means. If, for example, Saudi Arabia and Israel went to war, does anyone legitimately believe that Bush would support Israel over the Saudis?
The pro-Israel lobby is a secular effort, notwithstanding that some religious Jews agree with it, because it is encouraging the policies of the secular Israeli government. Israel does have a state religion, but it also has freedom of worship and its leaders are rarely if ever observant Jews. Israel's laws are not Jewish law (halacha). Contrast this with the Islamic regimes, which claim shariya as the law of the land.
With his sloppiness of phrases and exaggeration of the power of the pro-Israel lobby, though, Mr. Dawkins evokes those who promote the forged "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and claim a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, ideas which have driven real anti-Semitism. It's annoying rather than offensive to me, but I can see why Mr. Berreby wished to call attention to Dawkins' statement.
Finally a cogent response. Thank you.
No one will ever change the minds of American jews about Israel because if Israel can't exist then they feel as people it makes them vulnerable.
Atheists actually engage in "doubt" rather than total non-belief. Note that they do acknowledge the existence of God by giving themselves a title of Atheists , often organize with the need to justify themselves.
You say, "Atheists actually engage in 'doubt' rather than total non-belief. Note that they do acknowledge the existence of God by giving themselves a title of Atheists , often organize with the need to justify themselves
Completely wrong! Its almost embarassing to have to point this out. The term "atheist" was not coined to reject god (thus implying that such an entity really existed), but rather to differentiate from people who believed in such an entity.
You might have started an interesting discussion if you had brought up the difference between what some people call Weak Atheism and Strong Atheism. Weak Atheists choose not to believe in god. Strong Atheists deny the existence of god. It's a subtle difference (and to my mind rather silly - weak atheists just seem like agnostics) but it might have sparked some interesting debate.
The fact that the concept of god has existed in many human societies and for thousands of years, does not PROVE the existence of god. Until you can provide empirical evidence, the existence of god is no more likely than the existence of bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, or fairies. There is no reason for atheists to restrict themselves to "doubt" rather than total non-belief when the entity in question is a man-made irrational boogie-monster.
I wonder if there are any Jewish atheists.
SEARCHING FOR TRUTH, JUSTICE AND PEACE
ANTI-SEMITISM IS EVIL, just as is anti-any-e
We Americans need to stop playing word games. For example, if we apply the Webster definition of "TERRORISM" to the already-forgotten recent Middle East war between Israel and Hezbollah, and use OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS, then Israel and not Hezbollah was the biggest terrorist in this tragedy, with 50 to 1 non-combatant deaths for Lebanon vs. Israel (2/3 of Israeli dead were soldiers), and an even greater disparity in terms of infrastructure and the long-term suffering of people. Israel could have fought Hezbollah up close and personal, but instead involved over a million innocent Lebanonese in an asymmetrical war using United States-supplied warplanes and smart bombs.
Of course, the word terrorism is reserved for our enemies, and not part of our terms of endearment with Israel. However, before we consign what happened to Lebanon and its people to "collateral damage" and it completely fades from our short attention span, perhaps we can find a more appropriate term to describe ravaged Lebanon, such as "collateral devastatio
Human beings think and rationalize in words. For this reason, words decide issues. Many people use words imprecisely or for advantage, and not for truth. The prime example here, anti-Semitism and anti-Israel are not the same thing. If they were the same, then the Israeli government would be infallible. Israeli tough-guy terror (seen often, even on American TV) is about half the reason the United States is hated in the Middle East. Unfortunately, we have to go along too because no one can speak the truth of words and reality. Our one-sided policy in the Middle East is a disaster.
It's undeniable as it is incontestable a fact that the Jewish lobby/AIPAC has a profound and devstating influnce on US foreign policy in the Middle East-observe for example how israel's supporters zealously promoted the disastrous war on Iraq and are agitaing for another on Iran;observe how for example,there are forty three Jewish members of congress-clearly over represented considering their small number in the US vs one Muslim in congress-when the number of Muslims in America is equal to or slightly larger than the those of the Jews.
Why such influnce? Essentially a function of domestic politics:a highly organized potent voiceferous jewish lobby and a responsive US politicians who favor their narrow self serving intersts than borader national intersts.I
I don't belive there are jewish conspiricies-it is simply a very highly effective jewish lobby that enjoys the support of the overwhelming majority of US Jews-there are few Naom Chomskies around who strongly oppose the racist apartheid militaristic policies of israel.
I am 100% pro Israel. I do admire, very much, jewish contributions to our civilization, however I see no anti-semitism in Richard's comments and I am behind him, also, 100%. We need many more Dawkins to enlight our specie.
People who say they are "100% pro Israel" are as fatuous as those who say "I'm 100% pro-Americ
If you said you were 100% pro God, would that encompass everyone's view of God, including the vengeful, unmerciful, smite the heathens variety, would that make you a humanitarian?
I've always questioned why the American "pro-Israel" crowd is incredibly anti-immigration in the US but completely supportive when it comes to funding illegal immigration and Jewish settlements by the billions. NPR made a subtle attempt to point this out on air last week by putting these two topics side-by-side. I'm loathe to agree with foreign dictators on this issue but it's a good point. There are Palestinian Jews, Christians and Muslims who are there legally but illegal immigration is what's the issue.
The way I've seen it is the "pro-Israel" Christians, as Delphine points out, are doing it with ulterior motives: Take over the land to help speed the coming of Christ and if that means partnering with those who don't believe in their savior, so be it. I've heard many people deny it when confronted but behind closed doors they have no qualms with telling you the real reason they're doing it.
Is it just different when the immigration isn't for religious reasons?
What a lot of the comments here seem to be missing is that some of the most "pro-Israel" folks here in the U.S. are actually Christians who believe in the fallacy that a strong Israel is part of bible prophecy and hence support Israel's militarism and/or who support the neocon anti-Islamic grab-all-the-oil agenda.
And conversely, not all Jews feel the same way about Israel.
I am a secular Jew and do NOT support AIPAC's agenda nor Israel's militarism.
Every time someone posts about this, it's the regular round of being called "apologist" or intimating that someone is saying AIPAC doesn't exist or that Jews are just "sensitive". Well AIPAC doesn't represent me in any way, so fire away about that group. But please do not lump all Jews in together as if we all believe exactly the same thing and behave in the same way.
We don't. Call me oversensitive but it's tiring to keep hearing people tell me I can't think for myself.
Exactly. AIPAC does not represent me either. I have a problem, though, when people see a problem and say things like *jews* and *THE* JEWS, this or that*. Or, *Jews* are *Racist*, which, by the way is also in at least one specific Israeli courtcase been asserted for one specific case about Isrsaeli Politics. I am convinced that jews are not a race, but a people, and a nation. As soon as one starts lumping people together and giving them a label, even if one speaks about ALL blond men with blue eyes, for example, one applies discriminatory tactics. That is why I often respond to such labelling tactics, which also often want to impose certain actions, I do not approve of. One example of that is expressions such as Israel must be wiped off the map. I would be equally exercised for example if anyone would say Iran must be wiped off the map, and I would certainly speak up about that. Israeli militarism often offends jews, because we have never been militarists. But Israel is a nation, and as such, it needs a Military, and it is surrounded in a sea of other-minded peoples. Just take a look at the map, and therefore, Israeli militarism is a necessity of life.
There is much truth in what you say, but you do omit an important fact. Israel is a "Jewish State". Their lobby is therefore that of the only "Jewish State". So it isn't a disconnect, Dawkins was perhaps a little sloppy, but maybe wanted to avoids the flashpoint term "Zionism".
He could have been clearer, but it isn't an insult to those of us who are science-based rationalists. He should, of course, clarify his position,but I don't see it as a big deal as you do.
Dawkins spent the bulk of his life being a scientist. It hasn't been until fairly recently, feeling rightfully threatened by religious-backed neo-con movements in the US and Europe, that he has felt the need to speak out. He has watched, since the end of the Cold War, while reactionaries have attempted to seize control of both science curriculums in public schools and, worst of all, public policy.
He has stepped out of his role as a leading science writer to speak out and has targeted his reproach at the root cause of why, in the 21st century, the blindly superstitious still have far too much policy control . He has observed as the religious right has imposed it's decidely minority will onto the rest of the public by using the media and political organization to get their chosen leaders into high policy making decisions.
This blind faith in misguided policy stances, from anti-global warming, stem-cell research, and Muslim policies in tandem with "pro-life", and pro-Israel agenda can be traced to heavy infusion of overly religious neo-conservativism. He believes that the best tact to return some semblance of rationality to our foreign policy and progressiveness to the development of intelligent energy and medical, etc. technologies is to use the tactics of the "enemy". As deplorable as Rove-like tactics are and how antithetical as the religious right movement is to the notion of real democracy, it has proven to be effective. To deal with swine, one must get dirty.
Atheism or, at least, secularism is a growing phenomenon, especially amongst the young. Per capita, there are more secularists than those who call themselves Jewish or Hindu. If Dawkins harnesses the power of those numbers and does the impossible, organizing those fearful of most organized groups, then the rationalists may finally have the day. As long as fellow secularists continue to split hairs over how he explains the need for secularist imput in public policy, then rationality will always take a back seat to ego. Ego has killed more than it's fair share of progressive movements.
The U.S. has separation of Church and State. The arguments you list are not relevant. Whether or not the religious, in your opinion, are *blindly superstitious* has no bearing on politics, or should not have. Religion, or Faith, however, does have standards about morality, law, and how society should be organized, and that is important in running a nation. Science does not deal with any of these subjects, and should not deal with it. Dawkins does not need to harness the power of the secularists, and Dawkins does not operate in the U.S. With a truly representative government, i.e. more than two political parties, a number of them, in fact, we would have a more nuanced government, and the persons deciding on policy would be a more representative factor in making policy decisions. Attacking religion, or putting faith in an A - Theist Party, does not do that. The non scientific standards of law, morality, etc. have been part of government for millenia. Roman Law, as practiced in a large part of Europe, has statutory law, and no case law, all based on religious law, which derives from the Bible (OLD TESTAMENT). What is wrong is to twist people's arms to impose one's own particular religion, or view thereof, on others, and tht is exactly what is wrong with muslim and christian movements to *convert*. Buddhis does not do that, neither does judaism. No Hindu has ever tried to *convert* me either. What is wrong with religion is that it is being used to force certain agendas on whole nations. But religion is not the real issue. Religion is used to further profit motives.
Israeli politics are not based on Torah. Israel would be a jewish nation if that were the case. Israel is a Democracy, where people are free to exercise free speech and their own religion, and where christians and Arabs are also part of the nation, and Arabs are in the Knesset. So, it appears to me, maybe I am wrong, that with Dawkins, you, being science-based, may not be quite fully informed. In science it is important to keep all relevant factors in the equation, and not to lose one or two. Arabs have their own powerful lobbies operating in Washington, but no one speaks about them at all, or whether or not it is appropriate to have Arabs, or a certain religion they represent, if they do, namely Islam, having such a powerful influence on U.S. politics. Similar conclusions could be made about certain industrial or other lobbies. For example, is the gun lobby principally christian? Or, is there another christian-based lobby? All this is irrelevant. What IS relevant is that lobbies are making or breaking U.S. policies, and not the American Populus, and therefore, the U.S. is not a Democracy. Oh, that is right, it is a Republic.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
